Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
He never kicked puppy !Is there no sin this man will not commit? Is there no depth towards which he will not sink?
Whenever you think you've reached the end of Wilson's many faults and vices, you discover some further depravity.
Or, to be more seriously,never supported lgbt and BLM.
China rules world now.
I mean,if they do not use one-child policy they would rule over us now.
But,they cripple themselves - so we have chance still.
Last edited:
Eparkhos
Well-known member
Just a sketch (short on time, don't want to forget).
During the meeting at the Doncaster bridge with the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Duke of Norfolk finds himself in a bad spot. The king (Henry VIII) has ordered him to negotiate with the rebels and get them to disperse, but the rebels won't lay down their arms unless given concessions beyond his authorization; in short, the only way to carry out his orders is to break them, and with a king like Henry that's never a good idea. Rather than make these promises, he writes to Henry to ask for clarification (PoD), and is told to succeed or die. Norfolk decides his only hope of survival is to turn against Henry and hope for the best.
Norfolk maneuvers the Earl of Shrewsbury into attacking the pilgrims by himself and getting himself killed; the Pilgrims have now killed a royal official and several thousand soldiers, and can't turn back. Norfolk and his men defect and join the Pilgrims on the march southward.
Henry is infuriated and orders an army raised--realistically, he could hold out in London due to the rebels' lack of siege engines, but the treasonous audacity of the rebels (and Norfolk in particular) is too much to stand. He raises a force (~15,000) men and marches north; the two armies meet near St Albans sometime in February 1537. Henry has better men and the Pilgrims have been worn down through travel and poor logistics, and so orders a full-on frontal assault (with himself leading, of course) to put down the peasants and kill that bastard Norfolk. The battle begins with the loyalists hitting the rebels like a sledgehammer, driving the footmen before them, but the charge soon bogs down as the rebels swarm over the horsemen; in the chaos, Henry's bodyguards are overrun and he is dragged from his horse and killed*. The cry goes up that the King is Dead, the morale of the loyalists breaks and they flee the field.
What next? My expectation is that the rebels will declare Mary the rightful ruler (Edward VI being yet unborn) and march on London. Norfolk uses the opportunity to purge the Seymours/any other rivals and wields immense influence for the forseeable future. And what of religion? The Pilgrims were arch-Catholics, so the monasteries are surely restored, but what next?
Thoughts?
*Technically, the Pilgrims only want Henry's advisors to be removed from office and he himself to remain the king, but at this point there's a war on and it's reasonable to think that he could be killed, even if only by mistaken identity in the chaos.
During the meeting at the Doncaster bridge with the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Duke of Norfolk finds himself in a bad spot. The king (Henry VIII) has ordered him to negotiate with the rebels and get them to disperse, but the rebels won't lay down their arms unless given concessions beyond his authorization; in short, the only way to carry out his orders is to break them, and with a king like Henry that's never a good idea. Rather than make these promises, he writes to Henry to ask for clarification (PoD), and is told to succeed or die. Norfolk decides his only hope of survival is to turn against Henry and hope for the best.
Norfolk maneuvers the Earl of Shrewsbury into attacking the pilgrims by himself and getting himself killed; the Pilgrims have now killed a royal official and several thousand soldiers, and can't turn back. Norfolk and his men defect and join the Pilgrims on the march southward.
Henry is infuriated and orders an army raised--realistically, he could hold out in London due to the rebels' lack of siege engines, but the treasonous audacity of the rebels (and Norfolk in particular) is too much to stand. He raises a force (~15,000) men and marches north; the two armies meet near St Albans sometime in February 1537. Henry has better men and the Pilgrims have been worn down through travel and poor logistics, and so orders a full-on frontal assault (with himself leading, of course) to put down the peasants and kill that bastard Norfolk. The battle begins with the loyalists hitting the rebels like a sledgehammer, driving the footmen before them, but the charge soon bogs down as the rebels swarm over the horsemen; in the chaos, Henry's bodyguards are overrun and he is dragged from his horse and killed*. The cry goes up that the King is Dead, the morale of the loyalists breaks and they flee the field.
What next? My expectation is that the rebels will declare Mary the rightful ruler (Edward VI being yet unborn) and march on London. Norfolk uses the opportunity to purge the Seymours/any other rivals and wields immense influence for the forseeable future. And what of religion? The Pilgrims were arch-Catholics, so the monasteries are surely restored, but what next?
Thoughts?
*Technically, the Pilgrims only want Henry's advisors to be removed from office and he himself to remain the king, but at this point there's a war on and it's reasonable to think that he could be killed, even if only by mistaken identity in the chaos.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Question: Could the Crimean War Have Been Prevented, or was that conflict necessary in forcing Tsarist Russia to confront the reality that they've fallen far behind?
In the absence of the Crimean War, was there any other potential incidents where Tsarist Russia would suffer a similar traumatic defeat that would prod them into making serious reforms?
In the absence of the Crimean War, was there any other potential incidents where Tsarist Russia would suffer a similar traumatic defeat that would prod them into making serious reforms?
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
While I don't know enough of the causes of the Crimean War to be certain, its absence leading to a more aggressive Russia could lead to an earlier Russo-Japanese War, which at the right timing could serve a similar purpose without souring Russia's diplomatic prospects with other European nations.
Buba
A total creep
Yes, it was a dick measuring contest between Nappy and Nicky, with British paranoia in the mix. Absolutely needless and out of the blue.
A Turkish war of some sort is almost a given and Britain would back the Porte.
Another favourite is the Polish Question - again Nappy (plus FJ) meddling. @ATP will tell you that the OTL January Uprising was orchestrated by Bismark, so Prussia also could have had a finger in the pie.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
I'm guessing that in the absence of the Crimean War, could an earlier Polish uprising also be in the cards as well? Or alternatively, could Britain and France also become active players in the OTL January Uprising, with Prussia also backing the Poles as a way of further weakening Russia as well? Though I don't know why IOTL Prussia backed Russia in the January Uprising, since if they backed it, regardless of potential danger, that an independent Poland may also be more beneficial to the Prussians.
Buba
A total creep
It is complicate
The January Uprising came about due to lessened oppresion due to Russia's defeat in the Crimea. Hence something like it happening without that war - and defeat - is a big "maybe" in my book.
I share your reservations about Prussia "stocking the fire" and I can't wrap my mind around it, for the same reasons as you - opening the Polish Question is not good for Prussia. But it may still begrudge the Olomuntz Diktat, where Nicholas backed FJ and shot down Prussian ambitions for a greater role in the German Confederation.
France and Britain promising the moon to Polish morons - that's quite likely. Doing something to help them is a different matter. There would be British Fisher&Churchilesque crazies pushing plans of landings on the Baltic coast, of course. But saner minds should prevail, hence either Prussia or Austria are needed to deploy larger land forces against Russia. Here Franz Josef the Ungrateful says "hello". Nevertheless I wonder if Prussia or Austria may cancel one another out - a "too weak" Russia is not good - but never underestimate human stupidity, as they say.
The January Uprising came about due to lessened oppresion due to Russia's defeat in the Crimea. Hence something like it happening without that war - and defeat - is a big "maybe" in my book.
I share your reservations about Prussia "stocking the fire" and I can't wrap my mind around it, for the same reasons as you - opening the Polish Question is not good for Prussia. But it may still begrudge the Olomuntz Diktat, where Nicholas backed FJ and shot down Prussian ambitions for a greater role in the German Confederation.
France and Britain promising the moon to Polish morons - that's quite likely. Doing something to help them is a different matter. There would be British Fisher&Churchilesque crazies pushing plans of landings on the Baltic coast, of course. But saner minds should prevail, hence either Prussia or Austria are needed to deploy larger land forces against Russia. Here Franz Josef the Ungrateful says "hello". Nevertheless I wonder if Prussia or Austria may cancel one another out - a "too weak" Russia is not good - but never underestimate human stupidity, as they say.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
I would think that Austria would be the major player in any Polish uprising, since they share a border with both Russia and Prussia. Not only that but Austria could kill two birds with one stone, and not only help sponsor the Polish uprising, but also play a greater role in Wallachia and Moldavia, and possibly try to dislodge Russian influence or what's left of it in the Balkans (Serbia and Montenegro) I could see Britain and France relying more on Austrian participation in this case, possibly butterflying the Franco-Austrian War.
However, Austrian support in a different Polish Uprising might result in Prussia becoming more hostile to the Hapsburgs. Bismarck may or may not be popular with the other German states, depending on Austro-Prussian animosity in this case.
One additional caveat in this possible grudge fest would be Sweden jumping in, only for the possibility of regaining Finland. But that might not happen as Sweden wouldn't be strong enough. If this alternate Polish Uprising was successful, would it just be Congress Poland that becomes independent, or would it extend its borders to pre-Partition frontiers? Though that could possibly backfire on the Austrians as well, because of Galicia-Lodomeria.
However, Austrian support in a different Polish Uprising might result in Prussia becoming more hostile to the Hapsburgs. Bismarck may or may not be popular with the other German states, depending on Austro-Prussian animosity in this case.
One additional caveat in this possible grudge fest would be Sweden jumping in, only for the possibility of regaining Finland. But that might not happen as Sweden wouldn't be strong enough. If this alternate Polish Uprising was successful, would it just be Congress Poland that becomes independent, or would it extend its borders to pre-Partition frontiers? Though that could possibly backfire on the Austrians as well, because of Galicia-Lodomeria.
Buba
A total creep
Written assurances from Britain and maybe France?
In the short term - no. Austria is fresh out of having unleashed Polish peasants on the local szlachta - who treated them like a bad US slave owner - hence no threat.
But in the longer term - yes, and is exactly the reason why poking at the Polish Question is a bad idea for any of the paritioning powers.
BTW - I now remember whence the theory of "Prussia helped plot January Uprising" comes from - there was a thaw between Sankt Peterburg and Paris, and Berlin wanted to scupper it.
Ouch that's a nasty idea. It could lead to either a prolonged Catholic domination of the nation with a bitter clampdown on reformist or a very bloodly civil war, which could also prompt foreign intervention. Not good for England either way.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
I Wonder what will the fallout would be from the Polish Uprising for Austria. Considering that it could have also spread into areas of Poland under Prussian control, the Prussians would have an even bigger incentive to help Russia put it down in any case.
Buba
A total creep
Look at OTL Prussian reaction in 1863.
Mobilise a few Corps, put soldeirs on border, offer Russia help, hint at compensation.
Alvensleben Convention - Wikipedia
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
I think that this could also cement relations between Russia and Prussia, and thanks to Russian neutrality, Prussia was able to defeat Austria and France in their wars.
Buba
A total creep
That's exactly why Bismark cosied up to Russia.
Instead of maintaining a balance between Austria and Prussia - the status quo - FJ pissed off the Russians so much that they broke out kvass and semechki when enjoing a "point and laugh" session in 1866.
Better world for everybody.Catholic England would still take Ireland,but not Scotland.
Which mean smaller british Empire.
Better for world,too - nobody need Empires covering almost 1/4 of Earth.
Which reformists? thieves who steal monasteries and made poor people suffer ?
Of course Prussia started it.Mierosławski unit come from their territory with prussian rifles for part of them,and was supported till defeated and widraw.
Then they offered Russia help,when Austria and France still supported uprising.
It was Bismarck masterpiece - he made Russia France and Austria enemy.As a result,in 1866 and 1870 Russia do not intervene.
Which was possible becouse Bismarck was unprussian prussian - instead of charging against entire Europe like Frederick the Great Thief and wait for miracle,he isolated his future enemies before beating them,and made lasting peace.
Lucky for us,prussians later forget his lessons and charged at Europe again,loosing two world wars.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Anything that gets Henry VIII killed at the earliest possible convenience is a positive. If the Catholics can reverse the ruinous actions of his reign (e.g. restoring the monasteries and the important social and intellectual role they fulfilled), this is a big plus. If they can erase the notion of the monarch as head of a national church, that's also an enormous benefit (the doctrine of the two swords is, functionally, the foremost reason why Western civilisation has historically had so few monolithic governments).
I can only see this leading to a better outcome than OTL.
I think you're back-projecting the much later realities (Catholic monarchs as defenders of Royal absolutism) onto an earlier time, where those assumptions don't fit. Henry VIII was the progenitor of that absolutism. Killing him off (and erasing his vile legacy) removes the problem early on.
A bloody civil war prompting foreign intervention could be very unpleasant in the short term, but if we take the long view, I believe odds are that it's still better than allowing Henry VIII's legacy to stand.
"Prolonged Catholic domination", however, would be a major improvement over OTL. The Catholics wouldn't have to power to remove non-Catholics altogether anyway. What they'd be able to force would be... toleration. You know, the exact thing that the anti-Catholics of OTL denied the country in the their very real "bitter clampdown" and structural discrimination of Catholics?
OTL was the "nasty idea", I'd say. This ATL sounds like a fairly decent remedy.